2001-10-16 19:37:50

by Jesper Juhl

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] various minor cleanups against 2.4.13-pre3 - comments requested

diff -ur linux-2.4.13-pre3-orig/init/main.c linux-2.4.13-pre3/init/main.c
--- linux-2.4.13-pre3-orig/init/main.c Tue Oct 16 21:18:14 2001
+++ linux-2.4.13-pre3/init/main.c Tue Oct 16 21:22:33 2001
@@ -291,7 +291,7 @@

static int __init root_dev_setup(char *line)
{
- int i;
+ unsigned int i;
char ch;

ROOT_DEV = name_to_kdev_t(line);
@@ -465,11 +465,11 @@
*/
if (strchr(line,'=')) {
if (envs >= MAX_INIT_ENVS)
- break;
+ continue;
envp_init[++envs] = line;
} else {
if (args >= MAX_INIT_ARGS)
- break;
+ continue;
if (*line)
argv_init[++args] = line;
}
diff -ur linux-2.4.13-pre3-orig/kernel/exec_domain.c linux-2.4.13-pre3/kernel/exec_domain.c
--- linux-2.4.13-pre3-orig/kernel/exec_domain.c Fri Oct 5 01:41:54 2001
+++ linux-2.4.13-pre3/kernel/exec_domain.c Tue Oct 16 21:22:33 2001
@@ -40,8 +40,7 @@
};


-static void
-default_handler(int segment, struct pt_regs *regp)
+static void default_handler(int segment, struct pt_regs *regp)
{
u_long pers = 0;

@@ -73,8 +72,7 @@
send_sig(SIGSEGV, current, 1);
}

-static struct exec_domain *
-lookup_exec_domain(u_long personality)
+static struct exec_domain *lookup_exec_domain(u_long personality)
{
struct exec_domain * ep;
char buffer[30];
@@ -106,8 +104,7 @@
return (ep);
}

-int
-register_exec_domain(struct exec_domain *ep)
+int register_exec_domain(struct exec_domain *ep)
{
struct exec_domain *tmp;
int err = -EBUSY;
@@ -133,8 +130,7 @@
return (err);
}

-int
-unregister_exec_domain(struct exec_domain *ep)
+int unregister_exec_domain(struct exec_domain *ep)
{
struct exec_domain **epp;

@@ -154,8 +150,7 @@
return 0;
}

-int
-__set_personality(u_long personality)
+int __set_personality(u_long personality)
{
struct exec_domain *ep, *oep;

@@ -201,11 +196,10 @@
return 0;
}

-int
-get_exec_domain_list(char *page)
+int get_exec_domain_list(char *page)
{
struct exec_domain *ep;
- int len = 0;
+ unsigned int len = 0;

read_lock(&exec_domains_lock);
for (ep = exec_domains; ep && len < PAGE_SIZE - 80; ep = ep->next)
@@ -216,8 +210,7 @@
return (len);
}

-asmlinkage long
-sys_personality(u_long personality)
+asmlinkage long sys_personality(u_long personality)
{
u_long old = current->personality;;

@@ -274,8 +267,7 @@
{0}
};

-static int __init
-abi_register_sysctl(void)
+static int __init abi_register_sysctl(void)
{
register_sysctl_table(abi_root_table, 1);
return 0;
diff -ur linux-2.4.13-pre3-orig/kernel/panic.c linux-2.4.13-pre3/kernel/panic.c
--- linux-2.4.13-pre3-orig/kernel/panic.c Sun Sep 30 21:26:08 2001
+++ linux-2.4.13-pre3/kernel/panic.c Tue Oct 16 21:22:50 2001
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@
extern int stop_a_enabled;
/* Make sure the user can actually press L1-A */
stop_a_enabled = 1;
- printk("Press L1-A to return to the boot prom\n");
+ printk("Press L1-A to return to the boot prompt\n");
}
#endif
#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_S390)


Attachments:
2.4.13-pre3-jj1.patch (2.88 kB)

2001-10-16 19:52:11

by Dave Jones

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] various minor cleanups against 2.4.13-pre3 - comments requested

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Jesper Juhl wrote:

> There's a small typo in the text that's printk()'d to the user - it
> says "...the boot prom\n" where I believe it should say "...the boot
> prompt\n".

This one isn't a typo. Its the sparc boot PROM :)

regards,

Dave.

--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

2001-10-16 19:59:01

by Christoph Hellwig

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] various minor cleanups against 2.4.13-pre3 - comments requested

In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> kernel/exec_domain.c :
> Contrary to most other files in the kernel source the functions
> in exec_domain.c are defined with the
> return values on a line by themselves. Most places in kernel
> source have the entire function definition
> on a single line (as long as it does not exceed 80 chars in
> length). So I moved the function definitions
> onto a single line.

NO. This file is maintained and that style is intentional.
(BTW, you could compare it to output of scripts/Lindent..)


> kernel/exec_domain.c : get_exec_domain_list()
> The len variable (signed) is compared to PAGE_SIZE (unsigned).
> Changing len to "unsigned int" avoids
> comparison between signed and unsigned.

Looks sane to me.

Christoph

--
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.

2001-10-16 20:24:29

by Jesper Juhl

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] various minor cleanups against 2.4.13-pre3 - commentsrequested

Dave Jones wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> > There's a small typo in the text that's printk()'d to the user - it
> > says "...the boot prom\n" where I believe it should say "...the boot
> > prompt\n".
>
> This one isn't a typo. Its the sparc boot PROM :)
>

Ahh, I see. Thank you!

- Jesper Juhl

2001-10-16 20:28:59

by Jesper Juhl

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] various minor cleanups against 2.4.13-pre3 - comments requested

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> > kernel/exec_domain.c :
<snip>
> > length). So I moved the function definitions
> > onto a single line.
>
> NO. This file is maintained and that style is intentional.
> (BTW, you could compare it to output of scripts/Lindent..)

Ok. I had a feeling that doing coding-style changes would probably not
be a good idea - thank you for the feedback. I'll take a look at
scripts/Lindent.

>
> > kernel/exec_domain.c : get_exec_domain_list()
>
> Looks sane to me.
>

Ok, great, I'll keep that bit on my "things that could possibly turn
into a real patch someday" list :)

- Jesper Juhl

2001-10-16 21:34:42

by Robert Love

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] various minor cleanups against 2.4.13-pre3 - comments requested

On Tue, 2001-10-16 at 15:37, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> init/main.c : parse_options()
> The check that adds "line" to either "envp_init" or "argv_init"
> checks to see if the buffers are full and break;s the while() loop
> if _either_ buffer is full - it should use continue; so both buffers can
> get a chance to fill up. Robert M. Love should get credit for finding
> this one, I found it by looking at an old patch of his, and I just checked
> to see if it was still there and read the code to see if it was correct.

Thanks for running with this.

Now, for the love of all things holy, can _someone_ either tell me what
is wrong with this patch or merge it already? I originally wrote this
for 2.2!

It seems clear to me that we lose either the environment vars or
command-line args when the other one fills up...

Robert Love

2001-10-17 09:19:27

by Martin Dalecki

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] various minor cleanups against 2.4.13-pre3 - comments requested

Jesper Juhl wrote:

> kernel/panic.c : panic()
> There's a small typo in the text that's printk()'d to the user - it
> says "...the boot prom\n" where I believe it should say "...the boot
> prompt\n".

No I think it should be as it is... prom - measn here boot programm read
only memmory.
Somethink like the bios on other architecutres then x86.